Core Education Committee

Present: Andrea Allan, Abby Crowell, Kelsey Emard, Dan Faltesek, Liz Delf, Matt Kennedy, Brian Mills, Kari-Lyn Sakuma, David Stemper, Paula Weiss
Ex-Officio Members present: Stephanie Baugh (Curriculum Management), Heath Henry (General Education Assessment), Ashley Holmes (WIC Director), McKenzie Huber (Core Education Director), Karen Watte (Ecampus), Tenisha Tevis (DPO Director)
Guests present: Kali Furman, Mike Jefferis, Kristin Nagy Katz, Andrew Valls

All motions were moved and seconded.

CH 221Z    General Chemistry I
CH 227Z    General Chemistry I Lab
CH 271    General Chemistry I Lab for Chemistry Majors

Notes: Fit the category and should go forward, the matrix needs to be corrected. 271 was okay for majors, better than 227Z. Minor things, small content issues. Heath confirms we are good.

Proposer recommended approval with clarity in syllabus – wants students to understand why they are taking the course and how it counts for Core Education (Core Ed). CIM explains this, syllabus does not.

Motion: Conditional approval pending receipt of updated syllabus with increased detail in the syllabus matrix provided to Heath. Motion passes 11-0-1 in favor

SOIL 205    Soil Science Lecture
SOIL 206    Soil Science Laboratory for SOIL 205
FOR 206    Forest Soils Laboratory for SOIL 205
CSS 205    Soil Science (Lecture and Lab)

Notes: SOIL 205 and 206 look good, service learning is cool. Matrix is vague, more specifics recommended for students. CSS 205 matrix is great, they should use it for all sections. FOR 206 matrix is good.

Conditional approval of SOIL 205, SOIL 206, FOR 206, and CSS 205 pending receipt of updated syllabi for SOIL 205 and 206 with more detail in the syllabus matrix (use content from CSS 205 matrix to SOIL 205/206). Motion passes 10-0-0- in favor.

KIN 280    Patient & Client Centered Communication

Notes: tabled from last week, is it a major’s class, is the class getting to the Learning Outcomes (LOs) of the categories. Added additional reviewers. Reviewer 1 – looked at rollback from reviewer, does not see 1:1 speech project. Not meeting 2 speech projects. Issue with second speech product. Group speech and no specificity on breakdown on work. Is course too specific on medical communication, reviewer 1 does not feel it is too narrow. Feels that motivational interviewing with verbal/non-verbal communication. Thinks it fits the category and could be used by pre-vet students as well as human medical. LO 3 thinks it changed enough.

Reviewer 2 – project being used for essential assignment is not specific to require each student presents. Oral communication isn’t guaranteed to happen as currently written. KIN designator makes the course feel narrow. Physical activity assignment is too narrow and makes it tailored to KIN majors. If broader assignment, could see how it could be for a broader audience.

Reviewer 3 – need to show how students are doing speeches. Agree with reviewer 1 but the physical activity makes it too narrow.

Heath – still does not think LO2 essential assignment is assessing the outcome.

Committee member - a lot of value in interviews for various majors, including kinesiology I just don't think it falls in line with the speech communication product as I conceive it.
Motion: Rollback: 1) still need to clarify how each person does two oral speech products to co-learners and instructor; 2) essential assignment for LO2 does not assess how students describe forms of communication and how they reach different audiences; 3) broaden the assignment content to be relevant beyond Kinesiology/physical activity; 4) ensure that in a group speech, all students are giving enough of the presentation to be evaluated on their speech product per the LOCR. Motion passes 8-0-1.

COMM 114    Argument and Critical Discourse

Notes: 3rd review.

Motion to approve. Motion passes 8-0-1 in favor.

GEOG 202    Maps, Media & Communication

Notes: It's still focused on maps, but in different communication forms and media. And I'm just not sure that's meeting the spirit of LO2.

They do also include an examination of audience and arguments. And I thought the LO3 looked good now. Class has made progress, would love to know more about how that theory specifically informs their delivery of speech communication products.

Heath – Essential assignment for LO 2 is still applying to just a presentation, need to describe different forms. They've got to describe different forms and how they're the audiences in the context. Attempted to address feedback but did not meet EA for LO2.
Concern that this is major specific because it is a requirement for only one major. Heath feels that on the information literacy side of it is as broad and applies to everyone.
 
Major specificity: Dan does not want to reinvent the wheel on future courses the committee is going to get that are major specific. Kelsey does not think we should make assumptions unless the content is evidence is just for majors, then she feels it is a solid reason to push back. Possible tests: UESP student value, design to support public speaking, enrollments.

Motion: Rollback: Essential assignment for LO2 needs to describe different forms of communication for LO2, and how the communication theory informs oral presentation for LO3. Motion passes 8-0-2 in favor.

GEOG 242    Urban Aqua Networks: Ancient to Modern

Notes: Lists same instructor for all three modalities including Cascades. For all LO’s they talk about how they designed assignments but not course to meet LOs. Felt that it was redundant. Does not think the social aspect of water use is clear, more historical. LO3 game play does not describe monitoring and assessed. It is unclear how this class is positioned as actually an introduction broadly to a social science field. For LO2 students have some qualitative and quantitative data, but it is not used to explain human behavior. Not sure that's appropriate for the category.

Heath - all three learning outcomes that everything that that Matt and Lori said like the lack of detail, the no information, the no explanations. It's for all three. They need to fix it for number one. They need to fix it for All of the proposal just has very little information. Especially about course content. It's almost all, like reviewer said. A breakdown of how the assignment is structured, but no real connection to any content or to the learning outcomes.

Motion: Rollback: 1) is this course an introduction to a field of social science: 2) need to show how each LO is addressed in the course. Motion passes 10-0-0.

BA 251    Managing Organizations

Notes: broad selection of case studies of how companies manage their employees. Can business teach social sciences, yes, are they doing it now, no. Theory proposed in the class. It's entirely ideographic, meaning that it explains a bunch of cases. It doesn't try to tell you about the structures of human society or humans and how they live together in groups. There are no data that are collected. There does not seem to be the way they try to deal with, and this is another concern. Los 1, 2, and three seem to be from different courses for me. Lo1 and 3 are discussing management. Lo2 is a whole set of assignments for a media mix class. Which is a class about how you buy and sell advertising. And so they want to deal with all the quantitative stuff in the context of this ad class that gets dumped into the middle of this class about management theory. Needs data and limits. Additional review – favors it to be approved at initial review, but feels it is flat and lacks depth. Of the opinion it should be rolled back, does not feel it is college level. Nike as an organizational phenomenon does not work for social science. LO2 – have more sufficient social science theory to back the class content.

Heath – question that needs to be addressed – what is the field of subfield of social science that is being introduced. If they can clarify that, the course can be built around the field or subfield.

Committee member is asking if business and the relationship between employees and organizational culture is a social science, businesses are institutions, could fit but needs further development.

Motion: Rollback: 1) what is the field of social science that is being introduced? 2) provide social science content and theory to explain informal and formal structures and process of institutions and human behavior; and 3) how are students taught to think critically about using both quantitative and qualitative data to understand larger social processes and institutions; 4) course needs to develop course content in social science methodology to explain and predict human behavior. Motion passes 9-0-1 in favor of motion.

HST/REL 210    Religion in the United States

Notes: Recommend returning, cannot find contemporary examples (goes to the 19080’s) from the course addressing racism (LO3) and identities. Good class, does not fit category as currently designed. Issue with not using OER because it is a broadly used class. Great class but examples provided are historical. If proposer can make it clear, it will be a valuable class.

Kali – contemporary issue is white Christian nationalism as a manifestation of historical example. Fine with committee sending back, Christian privilege.

Heath – details are missing with contemporary examples related to criteria or LO2. Essential assignment is missing LO3 – student wouldn’t have to bring race in as an issue to their work. Essential assignment needs to guarantee race as a response.

Motion: HST 210 Rollback: 1) contemporary examples need to be included in LO2; 2) attention to racism needs to be explicitly required as part of the description and essential assignment in LO3; and 3) students need to reflect on their own positions in relation to systems of privilege/oppression. Motion passes 11-0-0 in favor.

ES 231    Introduction to Asian American Studies

Notes: Exemplary, no problems. Content is wonderful, covers all bases.

Motion: Motion to approve. Motion passes 10-0-0 in favor.

WR 474    The Writing and Rhetoric of Critical Race Theory

Notes: Looks good overall, not sure Essential Assignment for LO3 addresses LO3.
Heath sees issue with what reviewer says, the course is using a counter-story, the assignment gets the student do to what the LO is asking. Agrees can use details but knowing what he knows of counter-story, it is good. Other reviewer says EA for LO3 does not state race, Heath counters based on title of the course.

Kali – highlight breakdown of steps for EA – step 2 is written in argumentative essay I just wanted to highlight in the breakdown of the different steps for this paper project that they're using as the essential assignment, step two is research the topic of their interest that they're going to write their counter story about.

Reviewer can't tell if they will be assessed on writing about how the field of writing is positioned to systems of oppression. Though it's referenced in other parts of the CIM proposal. Heath says he can find it in some place. Kali says In the under CSL, CLO1, sort of talking about how the course will be designed to address it, the last line says. That they are going to analyze how similar forms of oppression are reproduced in English studies and reflect on our positionalities in relation to oppressive institutional systems of education. So it says that they'll do it. I think the like exact mechanism by which they'll do it is the part that's a little bit less clear.

Motion to conditionally approve pending an Ecampus proposal. 10-0-1 in favor of the motion.

REL/HST 470    Religion in the American West

Notes: Course is not restricted to Junior/Senior standing. Feels it meets the category and assessments are well done, some things are implied but feels it is okay. Has contemporary issues but does not give dates. Other reviewer felt LO 1 and 3 didn’t fully show how religion is situational with systems of oppression/ professionals in the field can overcome racism and other forms of oppression.

Heath – Thinks the class does everything it needs to do. Responses are a bit general. Essential Assignments fit the LOs.

Kali – Second what Heath says.

Motion to approve. Motion passes with 11-0-0 in favor of the motion.

ED 100    Transitions - University CORE 100 course
ED 300    Transitions - University CORE 300 course

Notes: CORE 100 and 300 so should be approved.
Karen Watte - The essential assignments, at least for LO1 and 3, are different from the core ed or the core essential assignments Is that a problem? Heath says no.

Motion to approve ED 100 and 300. Motion passes 10-0-1 in favor.

WSE 111    Wood Innovations for Sustainability

Notes: Does not address the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) competencies, guest speakers and how they are addressing NACE. Other than that, a fine class. Students get to interact with industry professionals. Needs a roll-back. Other reviewer agrees and points out that proposer agreed with adding in more NACE.

Heath – proposal does not address NACE anywhere, course needs a roll-back and respond how NACE competencies are embedded in the course.

Motion: Motion to rollback to address NACE competencies. Motion passes 11-0-0 in favor.

NSE 474    Nuclear System Design I

Notes: class is fine but the Beyond II LO only accounts for 10% of grade so the student could blow it off. Other reviewer thinks class looks good and could address NACE. Course mentions resume building. Students attend one career fair as the engage part of the course. Beyond does not have to have a huge component in course because it is only one LO. Kelsey advocates that the course itself is a capstone and is career relevant – course builds teamwork and oral communication.

Motion to approve. Motion passes 12-0-0 in favor of the motion.

CS 426    Cybersecurity Practicum III

Notes: For the essential assignment in CIM, they label it as a reflection whereas in the syllabus. They explicitly state that they're going to be creating a portfolio. And then they describe the components of that portfolio. Heath - we'll be asking them to select their essential assignment when they actually submit. So, I feel like we don't need to roll back for this. We can make note of it. Will need to be clarified by the time that assessment asks for those. Other reviewer agrees with approval.

Motion to approve. Motion passes 12-0-0 in favor

RNG 307    Land Stewardship Career Skills & Building

Notes: Reviewer thinks proposal looks wonderful but clarification needed on essential assignment. Needs reflection on the engagement requirement. Other reviewer agrees. Sees there is some sort of plan they will put together but it wasn’t clear what it really looked like or meant, depending on what experiential learning component the student chose. Kelsey wants to know from Assessment if they need this information. Heath does not think it needs to be sent back for Beyond. Assessment office will seek clarity at artifact collecting stage.
Motion to conditionally approve pending an Ecampus proposal. Motion passes 11-0-1 in favor of the motion.

SW 491    Social Work Practicum Supervision

Notes: I think the course probably meets the category. It's a practicum, so students are in, they're actually like working in their career field at an office with supervised social work. They can register for anywhere from one to eight credits at a time up to taking this course up to 30 credits. So I think that's probably fine, but I thought it was going to look really weird if they had like 12 beyond credits on their. Stephanie followed up and said this is just the oddness with the category.

Also, maybe a question for Karen. It's listed as Ecampus, but then it's a hybrid and they call it an Ecampus hybrid course and they're meeting synchronously via zoom. The course type is required by the program’s accreditation.

Heath – doesn’t meet sprit of category but what they turn in can be considered an artifact. Red flag when a copy and paste response for one and two. Enough detail that both outcomes are being addressed. Both LOs are met with one assignment.

Motion to approve. Motion passes 12-0-0 in favor.

GER 320    German for the Professions

Notes: Secondary review. Proposer added one sentence “Students will use their linguistic and cultural skills in German language and culture that they obtained at OSU to address this course specific LO.” No change to the assignment.

Heath – if this came to us now for the first time, we would say, meh this is okay. Committee is thinking deeper because it is a re-review. This is a minor issue.

Reviewer does not think there is a point to send back because the committee won’t get anything valuable back.

Motion to approve. Motion passes 12-0-0 in favor.

Minutes taken by McKenzie Huber